like the fact that by system, Nikon One trails far behind Micro Four Thirds and significantly behind Sony NEX, each with their sales divided between far more models. Breaking it down by brand, Olympus m43 has about 30% of "mirrorless" unit sales in Japan, followed by Panasonic m43 (23%), Sony NEX (20%), Nikon One (14%).

True, 4/3 has obviously more market share.

Still, the Nikon One sells a lot more than our extremely negative LL collective reaction would lead some to believe. I was only stressing that we are a very poor sampling group for anything but high end equipment.

I think the Nikon 1 was intended to move the class of compact cameras upwards, away from the phone market. Getting users to buy into a platform with interchangeable lenses was a brilliant move. I think in many ways, it's the first time a compact camera was done well and thought-out from the ground up. If they can tweak the sensor to perform at 16MP on a par with a present-day 4/3 sensor, this would be a sweet spot.

I was only stressing that we are a very poor sampling group for anything but high end equipment.

And joking aside, I completely agree. Discussion forums of all kinds often completely miss the legitimate variety of needs and priorities in mainstream purchasing decisions. Like for example that for a substantial number of people, the sensor, focusing performance etc. of a Nikon One or Micro Four Thirds camera is "good enough" while that of a fixed lens compact with far smaller sensors is not, and the desire to be able to use more than one lens rules out the big sensor fixed lens cameras. Thus, the smallest or even just the most stylish option in compact system cameras can be the best choice for many people.

Very different though:- APS never got much popularity contrary to smaller digital sensors,- the quality of film per square inch and detail possible to extract there from was the same across format and did not progress much between generations.

It seems pretty clear that the sensor of an Olympus OMD is totally superior to that of the original Canon 1Ds (DR, detail, high ISO noise).

So, besides the lack of shallow DoF, there is little reason to think that smaller sensors are not bound to satisfy an ever increasing fraction of the actual needs of photographers. This potential was never there with APS. The only hope of film makers was a lowering of the expectations of their customers.

Actually, you can get shallow DoF from small sensor systems such as MFT - if you are willing to work with it and possibly change your FoV. For example my most used lens on MFT is an old Rokkor 55mm f1.7 and I have no problem at all taking shallow DoF shots. Remember that DoF is a product of aperture and camera to subject distance with any camera and lens combination and if work with it and you can get shallow DoF if that's what you want.

Actually, you can get shallow DoF from small sensor systems such as MFT - if you are willing to work with it and possibly change your FoV. For example my most used lens on MFT is an old Rokkor 55mm f1.7 and I have no problem at all taking shallow DoF shots. Remember that DoF is a product of aperture and camera to subject distance with any camera and lens combination and if work with it and you can get shallow DoF if that's what you want.

Yes, I know, but you need to work a lot more with a 4/3 sensor and the range of applications is a lot more narrow.

In addition to the differences that Bernard mentions, there is another huge one: 35mm film had such huge usage and economies of scale that there was no cost advantage to any smaller film format (printing costs exceeded the costs of 35mm film and development), and neither APS film nor cameras ever had a cost advantage. Also, the compacts did not have a significant size advantage, once 35mm camera took the stratwgy of offering lenses with the same FOV coverage of about tue same soze, through having longer focal lengths but about the same sized lens elements, which meant increasing minimum f-stop by about one stop, which was easily compensaed for by using 35mm film about one stop faster, with the larger formats and smaller degree of enlargement needed offsetting any image degradation. ISO 400 and 800 films became the standard choice form many of those cameras.

Despite over a decade of predictions, this strategy has not at all lead to 35mm format dispacing the smaller formats in digital cameras, because the very large cost difference persists. Even the latest $2000 bodies cost many time more than entry-level cameras in the smaller formats, and as much as the top of the line Canon and Nikon film SLRs did.

Another difference is that the smaller formats persist in offering dostinctly higher sensor reolution (lines per mm, pixel spacing) so that unlike woth film, 35mm format cannot duplicae the results of the smaller formats by using the same focal length and then cropping. This lp/mm resolution gap shows no sign of diminishing.